* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>I did take your suggestion. Not having Content-Type specified now gives
>you responseXML as well. I assumed you would read the diffs you receive
>through e-mail. From now on I'll try to be more elaborate.
Thanks.
>The reason is that the draft needs to be reasonably compatible with
>existing content such that it can be implemented without breaking content.
If you think my suggestion would break existing content, it would be
more useful if you could actually explain your reasoning to me. It is
clear to me that Content-Type:text/xsl indicates the message body is
an XML document, I do not understand why adopting the text I proposed
would break any content.
>The user agent conformance class clearly says as long as the algorithm
>used produces the same result it doesn't matter how they do it.
If an implementation does the method syntax check before the same
origin check, you would get a SYNTAX_ERR exception; if you change
the order, you get a SECURITY_ERR exception. Clearly those are not
the same result. The question is why the draft now mandates a par-
ticular execution order. It is not clear to me it should.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/